# WHO: 1 Billion killed from Tobacco by 2100



## doctorcue (Apr 19, 2006)

I read this and it iritates me. Not necessarily the medical numbers (because I believe those, to an extent); but the elimination of choice by this board. Are they banning McDonalds & CO2 cars also? 

WHO article


----------



## SmokeyJoe (Oct 3, 2006)

Amazing... just read an article that stated that by the year 2015, the number of people over the age of 85 in the United States will rise an astonishing 73%.

How can they have it both ways? We are living to be 100, but tobacco is killing us all? Rampant nannyism and socialist arrogance. My :2


----------



## boonedoggle (Jun 23, 2006)

Yep, this is where smoking bans are spawned from.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

SmokeyJoe said:


> Amazing... just read an article that stated that by the year 2015, the number of people over the age of 85 in the United States will rise an astonishing 73%.
> 
> How can they have it both ways? We are living to be 100, but tobacco is killing us all? Rampant nannyism and socialist arrogance. My :2


They probably count you as a death attributable to smoking if you smoked for ten years in your 20s and died of lung disease 60-70 years later.


----------



## mdtaggart (Sep 22, 2006)

The W.H.O. should be fighting disease and starvation in poor countries.


----------



## Troop_lee (Aug 10, 2007)

I am sick of this BS, really just over it. It's my choice, why should any government or agency tell me that I can't use tobacco.


----------



## Da Klugs (Jan 8, 2005)

mdtaggart said:


> The W.H.O. should be fighting disease and starvation in poor countries.


How far they have fallen. Still love their songs though...

Out here in the fields
I fought for my meals
I get my back into my living
I don't need to fight
To prove I'm right
I don't need to be forgiven

Don't cry
Don't raise your eye
It's only teenage wasteland

Sally, take my hand
Travel south crossland
Put out the fire
And don't look past my shoulder

The exodus is here
The happy ones are near
Let's get together
Before we get much older

Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland, oh yeah
Teenage wasteland
They're all wasted


----------



## mdtaggart (Sep 22, 2006)

Da Klugs said:


> How far they have fallen. Still love their songs though...
> 
> Out here in the fields
> I fought for my meals
> ...


I use to crank it up loud on my eight track tape player. :w


----------



## M1903A1 (Jun 7, 2006)

"Can you see the real me, doctor..DOCTOR!!! " :tu


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

I hope to be the 1 Billionth person killed then.


----------



## tzaddi (Feb 24, 2007)

mdtaggart said:


> I use to crank it up loud on my eight track tape player. :w


Yes, the good old 8-track, I had me a good selection of tunes using that media... I believe Santana Abraxas was my first 8-track acquisition

...speaking of history...one need look no farther than the history of tobacco during it's European introduction to see that such miopic perceptions and the resulting persecution are nothing new.


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

Sounds like a good round number and now just keep repeating that number until everyone blindly accepts it.. Just like the 49,000 second hand smoke deaths a year in this country,, a few years ago it was 24000 but that didn't sound high enough so the number was raised to 49,,must have been that 50000 would have sounded manufactured.. 

Jerry in Minnesota.


----------



## K Baz (Mar 2, 2007)

1 billion killed by 2100? 

I don't know when man started smoking tobacco but if you assume man was around 7 to 8 million years ago and mankind started then this number looks okay. 

Maybe 18 per century?

Either bad headline or I have nothing to worry about.


----------



## tzaddi (Feb 24, 2007)

K Baz said:


> 1 billion killed by 2100?
> 
> I don't know when man started smoking tobacco but if you assume man was around 7 to 8 million years ago and mankind started then this number looks okay.
> 
> ...


According to my studies tobacco has been cultivated and smoked in the Americas for at least 5000 years, originating in the Peruvian and Ecuadorian Andes. I am confident that it's use goes back even further. That is not to discount the distribution networks that make it available to so many more people on the planet today.

What I am trying to point out is that tobacco and it's use have been around much longer than any of the current political-cultural systems and will more than likely survive the present assault on it's botanical right to exist. 

Who wants seeds?


----------



## horrorview (Jan 27, 2005)

Da Klugs said:


> How far they have fallen. Still love their songs though...
> 
> Out here in the fields
> I fought for my meals
> ...


Yeah, once Moon died, they just went down hill. :chk


----------



## boonedoggle (Jun 23, 2006)

My doc says my feet are going to rot off because of my cigar consumption. He is wise.:BS


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

tzaddi said:


> Who wants seeds?


you got some??


----------



## tzaddi (Feb 24, 2007)

Thillium said:


> you got some??


Always, how many acres do you want to plant? Send along you address in a PM and when I get back home next week I will mail you out some. (gratis):tu


----------



## Thillium (Jan 14, 2008)

tzaddi said:


> Always, how many acres do you want to plant? Send along you address in a PM and when I get back home next week I will mail you out some. (gratis):tu


Well I've only been thinking about it . I don't think my parents would be to dead set on the idea but I bet I could plug those suckers in the woods  But I don't know if they stand a chance with the North Easterner climate


----------



## GrtndpwrflOZ (May 17, 2007)

SOILENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!

ok so it's dead people who used tobacco but it's still people



SmokeyJoe said:


> Amazing... just read an article that stated that by the year 2015, the number of people over the age of 85 in the United States will rise an astonishing 73%.
> 
> How can they have it both ways? We are living to be 100, but tobacco is killing us all? Rampant nannyism and socialist arrogance. My :2


----------



## SteveDMatt (Feb 23, 2007)

SmokeyJoe said:


> Amazing... just read an article that stated that by the year 2015, the number of people over the age of 85 in the United States will rise an astonishing 73%.
> 
> How can they have it both ways? We are living to be 100, but tobacco is killing us all? Rampant nannyism and socialist arrogance. My :2


Any chance you have a link. This statistic sounds impossible. That's only 7 years away and the % of people over the age of 78 right now is no where close to 73%.

Did they mean that 73% of people will live to at least 85?


----------



## WooleyBugger (Mar 22, 2007)

mdtaggart said:


> The W.H.O. should be fighting disease and starvation in poor countries.


Like lung cancer?

Attacking those that are fighting the growing use of cigarettes makes us look like we're denying the ill effects of tobacco (meaning cigarettes) use. It damages our credibility.

Whenever the WHO or anybody else gets on their anti-tobacco bandwagon they are referring to cigarettes. We all know cigarettes are addictive and deadly. We, as cigar smokers, also know that smoking cigars is not addictive or deadly when used in moderation. The smart thing for us to do would be to educate the public on the differences between cigarettes and cigars and distance ourselves from cigarettes as much as possible. As long as we are lumped in with cigarettes we are doomed.


----------



## gnukfu (Dec 19, 2007)

mdtaggart said:


> I use to crank it up loud on my eight track tape player. :w


Then halfway through the song the player ate the tape. I remember those days. :tu


----------



## Syekick (Jun 5, 2007)

As a baby boomer, I wish they would just go ahead and do the right thing. Give us free tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and crotch rocket motorcycles. That would get the majority of us eliminated from social insecurity really quick!


----------



## Deucer (Jan 28, 2008)

WooleyBugger said:


> Like lung cancer?
> 
> Attacking those that are fighting the growing use of cigarettes makes us look like we're denying the ill effects of tobacco (meaning cigarettes) use. It damages our credibility.
> 
> Whenever the WHO or anybody else gets on their anti-tobacco bandwagon they are referring to cigarettes. We all know cigarettes are addictive and deadly. We, as cigar smokers, also know that smoking cigars is not addictive or deadly when used in moderation. The smart thing for us to do would be to educate the public on the differences between cigarettes and cigars and distance ourselves from cigarettes as much as possible. As long as we are lumped in with cigarettes we are doomed.


I think the problem with trying to educate people about the differences you describe is that non smokers don't care about smokers (cigarette or cigar or whatever) dying. They care about getting rid of tobacco smoke, which they find annoying, and will simply use this information to that end regardless whether it actually makes sense with regard to cigars.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

I personally find it offensive that the anti smoking crowd thinks I'm unwillingly and unwittingly a victim of evil tobacco corporations. I enjoy smoking cigars every now and then, even though I know it might be bad for my health, and if they don't like it, too damn bad.


----------



## dennis569 (Jan 16, 2007)

WooleyBugger said:


> Like lung cancer?
> 
> Attacking those that are fighting the growing use of cigarettes makes us look like we're denying the ill effects of tobacco (meaning cigarettes) use. It damages our credibility.
> 
> Whenever the WHO or anybody else gets on their anti-tobacco bandwagon they are referring to cigarettes. We all know cigarettes are addictive and deadly. We, as cigar smokers, also know that smoking cigars is not addictive or deadly when used in moderation. The smart thing for us to do would be to educate the public on the differences between cigarettes and cigars and distance ourselves from cigarettes as much as possible. As long as we are lumped in with cigarettes we are doomed.


life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness
damn that pesky constitution!


----------



## c2000 (Oct 16, 2003)

Deucer said:


> I think the problem with trying to educate people about the differences you describe is that non smokers don't care about smokers (cigarette or cigar or whatever) dying. They care about getting rid of tobacco smoke, which they find annoying, and will simply use this information to that end regardless whether it actually makes sense with regard to cigars.


 Right on,,..

Jerry in Minnesota


----------



## rottenzombie (Jun 11, 2007)

Syekick said:


> As a baby boomer, I wish they would just go ahead and do the right thing. Give us free tobacco, alcohol, drugs, and crotch rocket motorcycles. That would get the majority of us eliminated from social insecurity really quick!


Good Idea :tu LOL


----------



## chippewastud79 (Sep 18, 2007)

I'll bet the number from obesity hits 1 billion way before 2100. 
I am double screwed, fat and likes cigars, Dammit.


----------



## stig (Mar 9, 2006)

OK this is a bunch of $%&@#!!! The website for the American Cancer Society says that lung cancer killed about 160,440 people in 2004 and that the most common cause of lung cancer comes from cigarette smoking. ABout 87% of cancer deaths are related to smoking. That being said, 160,440 multiplied by 100 gives us 16,044,000 and 87 percent of that = 13,958,280. Second hand smoke accounts for 3000 deaths per year (again all information from the same site) so that would be another 300,000 deaths over 100 years bringing us to the year 2100, total 14,258,280. Now even if the next ten forms of cancer and smoking related illnesses were to bost the same numers we are still a long way from a Billion that's *1,000,000,000*. Now i'm not saying that 14,258,280 is a small number but I'm thinking that the billion number might just be a little exagerated or someone made an honest mistake and carried a decimal plae a bit to far to right before submitting these numbers. Just my:2


----------



## gamayrouge (Dec 21, 2007)

How come they don't mention how many people died as a result of alcohol? I'm sure the # is a lot greater.


----------



## kjjm4 (May 8, 2007)

Probably not from alcohol consumption. Maybe if you count fatal accidents involving alcohol, but I doubt the numbers that die from illness related to alcohol abuse are as high as the numbers that die from diseases related to smoking.


----------



## Youngsmoke (Jul 10, 2007)

I hate to beat an old stick, but...

I have never, in my life, known anybody who has died from lung cancer under 80 years old. I swear on everything holy.

However, I have had 2 relatives die of breast cancer. 

It just makes me think how reliable these statistics are. They are also so vague that it makes me sick.


----------



## Cheeto (May 10, 2007)

Youngsmoke said:


> I hate to beat an old stick, but...
> 
> I have never, in my life, known anybody who has died from lung cancer under 80 years old. I swear on everything holy.
> 
> ...


There are so many other variables that are never looked at when coming up with smoke related statistics. Like past family health, other environmental carcinogens and pollution in the air, even the definition of a "smoker" can't be agreed upon.

Yes, burning a weed an breathing in the smoke is unhealthy. But it's certainly not the only factor out there. And us cigar and pipe smokers are affected even less


----------



## Pat1075 (Mar 9, 2008)

What pisses me off is this is used as reasoning to tax us more because we are "harming ourselves and others" while we are being segregated more and more from the greater population on a daily basis with smoking bans. But even in the places where you are still lucky enough to still have smoking sections in bars and restaurants they are against cigar and pipe smokers.
The taxes that are imposed are insane where I live its 70% of MSRP on cigars forcing retailers to cut into their profit if they want to make any sales. Most of the time the tax money isn't even used for anything related to lung diseases or the things the lung association claims to be the problems that our second hand or even first hand smoke causes for that reason. Additionally these are regressive taxes a way to tax those with less money after those elected said they were going to cut the taxes for low income familys. This usually being the case for cigarettes. But then again I'm just pissed As I get taxed every day wether its on my cigar, my pack of cigarettes, or my pipe tobacco. :sb


----------

